Microsoft Encarta changes the Bill of Rights???

March 1st, 2012

Dear all:

We have been informed that a software application that Microsoft uses named En
carta (an encyclopedia for computers), has reinterpreted the US Bill of
Rights. Below is a copy of the report and findings from: Jethro K. Lieberman,
B.A., J.D., Ph.D.- Professor and Director of Writing Program, New York Law
School. Author of The Evolving Constitution: How the Supreme Court Has Ruled
on the Issues from Abortion to Zoning and The Enduring Constitution.
Constitutional Law.

Below his report, we have provided two web sites that we recommend you visit
to compare Microsoft’s “Encarta” interpretation of the Bill of Rights to the
original Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Please perform your own
research. If you have installed Encarta onto your computers, you may want to
investigate this information further before allowing your children to use
this software as research resource for homework assignments. Then again, this
may explain why your child is receiving good grades in US History. That is
for those who are taught US History.

The report:
The Bill of Rights has been changed by the Microsoft Corporation and can
be found in every computer that has the Encarta program in it.

Each amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution has been
changed by the Microsoft Corporation, and any child or person looking up
The Bill of Rights may not be aware of the actual rights of the
people.

For example, according to Encarta:
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to own weapons as
members of state militias.

Actual Second Amendment: A well regulate Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.

Microsoft changed the context and meaning of the Bill of Rights…. When
they do that to something so crucial to the American Citizen, what else
are they doing?
_______________________________

http://encarta.msn.com/

I. Introduction

Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United
States. The Bill of Rights establishes basic American civil liberties that
the government cannot violate. The states ratified the Bill of Rights in
1791, three years after the Constitution was ratified. Originally the Bill
of Rights applied only to the federal government, but in a series of
20th-century cases, the Supreme Court decided that most of its provisions
apply to the states. Many countries have used the Bill of Rights as a model
for defining civil liberties in their constitutions.

II. Rights Protected

The Bill of Rights includes a wide range of protections with a common theme
and purpose-to define the scope of individual freedom in the United States
and to make the political system more democratic. They are not the only
rights contained in the Constitution. For example, Sections 9 and 10 of
Article I of the Constitution prohibit the states and the federal
government from passing an ex post facto law-a law that subjects a person
to punishment for an act that was not unlawful when committed. But as a
group the rights provided in the first ten amendments are the cornerstones
of democracy in the United States.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and
freedom of association (assembly). It also protects the rights of citizens
to worship as they please and the right not to be forced to support someone
else’s religion. The First Amendment also provides for the right to
assemble and to demand a change in government policies.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to own weapons as
members of state militias.

The Third Amendment forbids the government from quartering soldiers in
private homes during peacetime without the homeowner’s permission, and
during wartime only according to law.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from searching people’s homes or
seizing their property without reasonable grounds to believe that a crime
has been committed.

The Fifth Amendment provides five important protections against arbitrary
government actions. First, no one may be prosecuted for a federal crime
without first being indicted by a grand jury. Second, a criminal suspect
may be prosecuted only once for each crime. If a jury acquits the accused
person, there can be no retrial. Third, a person cannot be forced to
testify against himself or herself in any criminal case. This is the right
against self-incrimination. Fourth, the Due Process Clause bars the
government from arbitrarily depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property.
Fifth, the government may not take anyone’s private property unless it is
necessary for a public purpose and unless the government pays for it.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial and
to have an impartial jury. It prohibits the government from prosecuting an
accused person without first informing him or her of the nature of the
charges against him or her. The accused has the right to “confront”-that
is, to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him or her at trial. If
there are witnesses favorable to the accused, the government must bring
them to the courtroom. The accused also has the right to be assisted by a
lawyer.

The Seventh Amendment, which does not apply to the states, guarantees the
right to a jury in federal civil (noncriminal) trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the government from administering cruel and
unusual punishments, imposing excessive fines, or requiring excessive bail.

The Ninth Amendment declares that just because certain rights are not
mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that they do not exist. Courts
may not infer from the silence of the Constitution that an unlisted right
is unavailable to protect individuals from the government.

The Tenth Amendment restates a fundamental constitutional rule: If a
particular power was not assigned to the federal government by the
Constitution itself, then the people or the states may exercise the power,
unless the Constitution also prohibits the states from exercising it. Until
very recently, this amendment has usually been interpreted in favor of the
federal government.

These amendments have been crucial to the political and legal development
of the United States. They accomplished three important purposes. First,
they declare an important ideal-that the people have rights with which no
government may interfere. Placing ideals into the Constitution makes it
harder for tyrants to restrict human rights. Second, they provide the basis
for actually securing the rights. In 1789 statesman Thomas Jefferson wrote
James Madison that a bill of rights “puts into the hands of the judiciary”
a “legal check” against tyranny by the legislature or the executive. Third,
the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment, helps protect the
democratic government by barring criminal prosecutions against those who
criticize the government and those who hold unpopular beliefs, and by
providing a safe haven for minorities who are oppressed in many other
countries.

III. Origins of the Bill of Rights

A. The English Legal Tradition in America

When English immigrants came to the American colonies in the 17th and 18th
centuries, most assumed that they would have the same protections against
government abuses of power that they had in England. The most important of
these were the right to trial by jury and the right of habeas corpus, which
prevented the government from jailing people arbitrarily. Other personal
liberties brought from England to America included the right of accused
persons to have legal assistance at trials, and a ban on excessive fines
and bail. These rights came from several centuries of English legal
tradition, recorded in documents such as the Magna Carta of 1215, the
Petition of Right of 1628, and the English Bill of Rights of 1689, from
which the American Bill of Rights took its name. The assumption of basic
legal rights of citizens also came out of the English common law, a body of
English court-made law that evolved from the 12th century.

English settlers in America included many of these protections in colonial
laws. The English Americans decided to codify (write into law) some parts
of the common law and to make additions suited to the colonial society. The
1632 charter for the Maryland colony, for example, declared that all people
who were born or who moved there were entitled to “all Privileges,
Franchises and Liberties” of a native Englishman. By 1639 the Maryland
General Assembly had passed an act for “the liberties of the people.”

Residents of the Massachusetts Bay Colony created the Body of Liberties in
1641, an important forerunner of the American Bill of Rights. The Body of
Liberties granted limited religious freedom, assured landowners of the
equal protection of the laws, the right to petition the government for
change, and the use of the writ of habeas corpus. It also banned
punishments considered “inhumane, Barbarous or cruel” and recognized the
right of an accused person to have legal assistance under some
circumstances. The Body of Liberties also required the presence of several
witnesses to a crime before a person could be sentenced to death. It also
granted citizens the right to travel and settle abroad, an important
freedom often denied in England.

Some colonies created religious protections stronger than those in
Massachusetts, even though religious freedom was not part of the English
legal tradition. Religious intolerance in the Massachusetts Bay Colony
spurred some people, including clergyman Roger Williams, to flee to other
areas. Williams went to Rhode Island in 1636, where he started a new colony
based on religious freedom and political equality. Eventually these
freedoms were incorporated into the Rhode Island Charter of 1663. This
charter banned government repression of religious groups and guaranteed
individuals the right to their own beliefs. The strong religious
protections in Rhode Island marked out a significant new limit on
government power.

B. Rebellion and Agitation for New Rights

By the 18th century, several generations of English Americans in the
colonies accepted the basic rights of citizens as part of their birthright.
British authorities shattered this assumption during the Seven Years’ War
(1756-1763), during which European powers fought for control of North
America. During the war British soldiers searched many colonists’ homes in
an effort to find smuggled goods. By the end of the war, many colonists
resented royal authority. The Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed a tax on a
wide range of items, further increased tensions. The Stamp Act Congress of
1765 issued a Declaration of Rights that condemned the tax as unjust and
also advocated trial by jury, the right to petition the government for
change, and “all the inherent rights and liberties” of people native to
England. The rebellion against English rule had started and eventually led
to the American Revolution (1775-1783).

England repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but the crisis continued. In 1774
the Continental Congress issued a Declaration of Rights that claimed the
civil liberties provided under English law, but that also expanded beyond
them to include claims based on a so-called natural law. This idea of
rights based on natural law emerged from several English writers of the
period, especially John Locke and William Blackstone. Locke argued that
government rested on the consent of the governed, and that no government
could violate basic natural principles of justice. Blackstone put English
common law into writing, and also asserted that God had created “certain
immutable laws.” Although the Declaration of Rights asserted new principles
of freedom, it had little impact beyond popularizing the cause of the
American rebels.

The English government resisted American claims for freedom, and fighting
broke out in 1775. Many of the colonies called conventions to create new
state governments free of English control. In June 1776 Virginia’s state
constitutional convention adopted the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The
declaration created basic civil liberties, including safeguards for accused
persons: the right to call witnesses, the right against self-incrimination,
a ban on excessive bails and fines, and due process of law. The declaration
also banned widespread government searches, discouraged the creation of
standing armies, and called for freedom of the press. James Madison, a
delegate to the convention, successfully argued for the inclusion of a
guarantee of freedom of religion.

Many colonies followed Virginia’s lead when they established new state
governments. Traces of the Virginia bill soon appeared in the Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Delaware declarations. By 1781 Massachusetts, North Carolina,
New Hampshire, and the provisional government of Vermont had all prefaced
their constitutions with some type of bill of rights. Most other states,
including New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Georgia, protected
civil liberties through a bill of rights in their new constitutions or
through new supplementary laws. Only Rhode Island and Connecticut continued
to rely on common law and existing legal provisions to guarantee personal
rights.

The idea of a bill of rights as a basic protection of civil liberties thus
dates to the American Revolution. From 1776 to 1781, the eight bills of
rights adopted by the states contained a total of 90 different provisions.
Some were heavily tailored to local circumstances. Most shared provisions
for jury trial, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear
arms (weapons), the right to petition the government for change, and a
range of other freedoms rooted in the Magna Carta and the English common
law. Through their assertions of broad rights to freedom of speech and
religion, however, these documents broke with English tradition. In
addition, the American bills of rights went far beyond the English
precedents by ordering restraints on the powers of government that had been
unthinkable before 1776.

IV. Debate Over the Constitution

The original Constitution drafted in 1787 did not include a Bill of Rights
because the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not think it
necessary to set down a list of rights. Most of the framers believed that
because the Constitution created a limited federal government, authorities
would not try to establish a national religion, censor a newspaper, or
prosecute someone at a secret trial.

When the Constitution went before the states for ratification, members of
the Federalist Party, who favored ratification, soon found that failure to
include a bill of rights had been a strategic error. The Federalists argued
that the people retained all powers not delegated by the proposed
Constitution, but the anti-Federalists did not trust this reasoning.
Jefferson, then serving as a minister to France, read the proposal and
sided with the advocates of a bill of rights. Human rights, he argued, were
something “no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

The Federalists and anti-Federalists both tried to rally support for their
position through widely distributed pamphlets. The Federal Republican
Society, for example, printed antiratification pamphlets and spread them
through the states. This group hoped that the states would reject the
Constitution, which would lead to a second federal convention. Some states
ratified the Constitution as early as 1787, but debates in these states
often turned on the lack of a bill of rights. As the pamphlet war dragged
out into the spring of 1788, many Federalists concluded that some
concessions on the bill of rights issue were vital.

The debate over ratification extended beyond party lines. Many religious
groups, particularly the Baptists, expressed alarm over the lack of
explicit religious protections. Printers worried about possible curbs on
the press. Old fears from pre-Revolutionary days regarding sweeping
government searches, warrants, criminal-trial procedure, and other rights
were stirred afresh during the debates.

Dedicated Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton remained unconcerned by
the calls for a bill of rights, but Madison and others saw the need to
compromise. The Constitution took effect when New Hampshire became the
ninth state to ratify it on June 21, 1788. Virginia’s ratifying convention
debated bitterly, but finally approved the Constitution by a narrow margin
five days after New Hampshire’s vote. Discouraged by the Virginia vote, the
New York anti-Federalists accepted that the Constitution would be adopted,
but also insisted that the First Congress consider a bill of rights.
Leaders in Rhode Island and North Carolina refused to ratify the
Constitution because of the lack of a bill of rights.

James Madison kept the idea of a bill of rights alive in Congress. He had
lost a Senate seat and barely won election to the House of Representatives,
having finally made an unequivocal campaign pledge to fight for a bill of
rights. Madison soon found he was almost alone in his concern for prompt
action on this promise, but agreed to consider all reasonable suggestions
for the new bill of rights. He distilled the essence of English and
American personal freedoms, relying heavily on George Mason’s Virginia Bill
of Rights.

When Madison reminded fellow members of Congress of the promise to enact a
bill of rights, his insistence upon action met with some coolness. He kept
fighting, however, and presented his plan to the House in June 1789.
Madison originally thought the bill of rights should be incorporated into
the original Constitution, rather than offered as separate amendments.
After weeks of delay, the House appointed a committee to prepare a bill of
rights, with Madison and Roger Sherman of Connecticut serving under
Chairman John Vining of Delaware. Sherman favored a separate bill of
rights, and his suggestion was finally adopted over Madison’s inclusion
plan. After much debate, the House passed 17 proposed amendments.

The Senate combined some amendments and eliminated others, reducing the
number to 12. The Senate defeated one amendment that Madison said he prized
above all others. It would have prohibited the states from interfering with
their citizens’ freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. But the Senate
did not want to bind the states, and regarded the bill of rights as
limiting only the federal government. The House and Senate deadlocked over
the different versions of the bill of rights, and a joint committee
convened to work out a final set of amendments. From this joint conference
12 amendments emerged, which the Congress passed on September 25, 1789.

Support from three-fourths of the states is needed to amend the
Constitution. Vermont’s 1791 statehood brought the number of states to 14,
so 11 states were required to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
Virginia became the 11th to do so on December 15, 1791. Most states did not
ratify the first two articles of the Bill of Rights. The first dealt with
the method of assigning congressional seats to the states. This amendment
was never ratified. The second article, specifying congressional pay rates
could not be changed before an intervening House of Representatives
election, lay dormant for more than 200 years. The states eventually
ratified it in 1992 as the 27th Amendment. The original third article of
the Bill of Rights, when ratified in 1791, thus became the First Amendment.

V. Interpretation

Courts interpreted the federal Bill of Rights narrowly for most of American
history, but during the 20th century courts vastly expanded its
protections. One of the most glaring violations of the Bill of Rights came
in 1798 when Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which gave the
government broad powers to squelch free speech. Opponents of the acts
charged that they violated the First Amendment, but a court test never
came. In a later dispute, Chief Justice John Marshall spoke for the Supreme
Court in 1833 when he declared in Barron v. Baltimore that the first ten
amendments applied only to the federal government, not to the states.

The Bill of Rights finally received close judicial analysis during
Reconstruction-the process of rebuilding the South’s tattered political and
economic system after the Civil War (1861-1865). The Supreme Court ruled in
the so-called Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 that, although the 14th
Amendment prohibited laws that infringed on “privileges and immunities of
citizens,” this protection did not include the first eight amendments. This
decision effectively blocked any attempt to make the Bill of Rights binding
on the states.

The Supreme Court applied Bill of Rights protections to the states in 1925
in Gitlow v. New York. The Court said that freedom of speech and of the
press were fundamental personal liberties “protected by the Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment from impairment by the States.” This
application of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment is sometimes
called the doctrine of “incorporation.” But in 1937 the Supreme Court
decided in Palko v. Connecticut that not all of the Bill of Rights were
incorporated by the Due Process Clause, limiting such sections to those
dealing with rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” By the
end of the 1960s, however, the Court had decided to apply nearly all of the
Bill of Rights to the state level. See Supreme Court of the United States.

VI. Comparison with Laws in Other Countries

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights is the most
extensive charter of liberties in the world today. Many other nations
observe most of the same rights, but not necessarily in the same way or to
the same degree. The Canadian Charter of Rights, for example, guarantees
most of the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, but some of its
provisions may be overridden in certain circumstances by both the Canadian
federal government and provincial legislatures. In the United States,
neither Congress nor the state legislatures may pass a law that conflicts
with the Bill of Rights. Citizens of Britain enjoy civil liberties, but the
Church of England remains the official church and the freedoms of speech
and of the press are weaker than in the United States. Moreover, Parliament
is supreme and may pass laws that violate civil liberties if it chooses.
France and most other non-English-speaking countries of Western Europe and
South America have a different type of criminal law system, and many
protections afforded to the accused in the United States do not exist in
these countries. Constitutions of the former Communist countries such as
the Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe established civil liberties on
paper but created no enforcement mechanisms. One of the first legal steps
taken in the newly emerging democracies in Russia and Eastern Europe in the
1990s was to add enforceable civil liberties to their rewritten constitutions.

Social media

Microsoft Encarta changes the Bill of Rights???